It’s time for more “Deep Thoughts with Heinlein”. “Human society brainwashes us into accepting artificial limitations on our lives and our choices. This is wrong! Love should be free, and without limit. Unless it’s gay of course!” And that concludes our "Deep Thoughts with Heinlein.
Sorry, I should have explained. Here, we generally believe that it is ok to consume media made by shitty people but that you should place it into the correct context, which in Heinlein’s case is that he had bigoted and proto-fascist beliefs that influenced his work. We don’t think it’s necessary to defend someone (or their work) from fair criticism just because we enjoy consuming what they create.
So yes, read Sherlock Holmes and Greek and Roman works, but do not think that Doyle’s western chauvinism doesn’t color his works and acknowledge that Plato or Cicero had crappy beliefs that should remain dead and buried with them, but still expand your mind by becoming aware of what they believed and why by reading them. Do not uncritically accept their beliefs and do not defend them or their beliefs just because they are talented or interesting or important.
Criticism is not, in itself, censorship, and understanding requires context and critique.
Heinlein’s great because every one of his novels sounds like hack dystopia fiction, but then he’s like “yeah so pretty dope right? we should definitely do this, yeah? anyway please vote for me in the next school board election.”
The quote comes from a science fiction novel called ‘Beyond This Horizon.’ Written by Robert A. Heinlein.
In the book, the government encourages particular couples to wed because of eugenics. A waiter spilling soup in a restaurant leads to a gunfight.
Heinlein loved throwing crazy idea around.
Imagine being such a NPC that you write a book without any workers in it and think “I’m not a fascist”
I guess that’s one way to say he was a fascist.
OSP’s review of Stranger in a Strange Land
OMG! Someone wrote bad things about gay people in 1964. They must be horrible, horrible people!!
Go back to reddit
So, I shouldn’t read Sherlock Holmes, because he was in favor of the British Empire?
How about Greeks and Romans who endorsed slavery?
Sorry, I should have explained. Here, we generally believe that it is ok to consume media made by shitty people but that you should place it into the correct context, which in Heinlein’s case is that he had bigoted and proto-fascist beliefs that influenced his work. We don’t think it’s necessary to defend someone (or their work) from fair criticism just because we enjoy consuming what they create.
So yes, read Sherlock Holmes and Greek and Roman works, but do not think that Doyle’s western chauvinism doesn’t color his works and acknowledge that Plato or Cicero had crappy beliefs that should remain dead and buried with them, but still expand your mind by becoming aware of what they believed and why by reading them. Do not uncritically accept their beliefs and do not defend them or their beliefs just because they are talented or interesting or important.
Criticism is not, in itself, censorship, and understanding requires context and critique.
That’s a really good explanation/summary of treat discourse.
tl, dr
you cannot be serious
Heinlein’s great because every one of his novels sounds like hack dystopia fiction, but then he’s like “yeah so pretty dope right? we should definitely do this, yeah? anyway please vote for me in the next school board election.”